He mentions that the EFF isn't taking on the full load of the case, but maybe he'd get more donations if EFF acted as an intermediary and managed the donations for him. He mentions several times questions like "Why should I trust you?", and his answer, "I'm very ethical", is not that reliable in and of itself. If the EFF sets up a fund, we wouldn't have to worry about suspicions about the use of the money and Geohot wouldn't have to worry about whether certain things qualify as "legal expenses" or outright temptations to misuse the fund.
He may also be able to circumvent PayPal fees, ultimately giving him more money, and he won't have to worry about transferring the remainder to the EFF at the end of it all.
I think that if the EFF won't assume such an important case completely, they could at least help out with some payment processing.
I'm donating - what Sony is doing is illegal. I understand that his work has lead to the option of piracy, and I fully support Sony's decision to ban consoles that have been modified from their online network - however the legal battle against geohot and team fail overflow is wrong.
Bottom line; this is a worthy fight to wager and my money will help support it.
Sadly, this is America and there is nothing illegal enough to not be challengeable in court. Seriously, the simple fact that Hotz has to pay up front and Sony has more money makes it possible for Sony to sue Hotz for a hopeless cause. Other countries collect money only after the trials, which effectively allows poor people a fair representation in court if their cause is righteous.
This whole issue is more a problem with the US legal system than it is with Sony. Sad.
I donated because I absolutely despise Sony. After their root kits on their CD's, every Sony exec should have been brought up on criminal charges. Rooting that many machines is a crime that any one of us would be doing a long stint in prison for. The fact that they got slapped on the wrist made Sony my mortal enemy. I don't buy Sony, I try to not buy technology in which Sony gets a royalty and I always take the opportunity to donate to anything that is anti-Sony. Needless to say geohot should be happy with his donations today.
The system is largely based on precedent, so if there have been enough verdicts in favor of the defendants in this kind of case, it should become easier and easier for them to defend themselves. Maybe corporations will even sue less of them, knowing they're likely to lose.
Exactly. For example a judge in Texas recently ruled that plaintiffs in piracy cases should file against individuals. This means that each lawsuit will cost around $350 in filing fees. It isn't financially attractive to spend six figures to file lawsuits over a few hundred people watching pirated movies. So I doubt we'll see any more of those mass bittorrent lawsuits in Texas if this precedent holds.
I'm curious: have you read the DMCA? Why do you think it doesn't apply to geohot?
Just because you don't like what Sony is doing doesn't make it illegal, and just because you support geohot doesn't mean the law is on his side. IANAL, but I don't see how he can win.
Cases like this don't come down to a simple interpretation of an existing law, often focusing more on the intent than the wording. Sony actually defended a similar case, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,.
Uh, well there's a pretty huge difference between copyright cases in 1984 and copyright cases today: the DMCA. The DMCA is the law and (with few exceptions) it makes it criminal to circumvent DRM. Intent doesn't matter and whether or not you actually infringe copyright doesn't matter.
I think it's a bad law, but it is a law and geohot broke it. IANAL, but I would imagine the only defense would be to try to get the law itself overturned. I don't see how else he can get out from under it.
Rather than being hard coded in the law the Copyright Office can add or remove them, however, just because something is not explicitly permitted does not mean it's automatically illegal. The intent seems clear "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
And the important bits:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
As long as his work is not directly setup so people can pirate content there seems to be little for Sony to base their case on.
As long as his work is not directly setup so people can pirate content
I really don't see how you could read the law you quoted and reach that conclusion.
If you post a tool that breaks DRM and you don't fit into one of the very narrow exemptions (and geohot doesn't), then you broke the law. It doesn't matter if you intended the tool for piracy or if it was "set up for piracy" or if anyone ever used the tool for piracy.
There is more than one interpretation of what does and doesn't violate the DMCA, and the 6th and Federal Circuits have taken one approach, which makes the DMCA less applicable to non-piracy activities, in Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components and Chamberlain vs Skylink, while the 9th circuit has taken an approach that makes a wider range of activities violate the DMCA in MDY Indus. LLC v. Blizzard Entm't, Inc.
This is probably a major reason why Sony is trying to sue geohot in California (under the 9th Circuit) despite the fact that the claim that California has personal jurisdiction over him in relation to his Playstation activities is extremely weak.
The plain text of the DMCA anti-circumvention clause is:
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title"
Interpreting this as congress intended is difficult, because often, systems which prevent their owner from doing one thing will also try to prevent their owner from doing other legal activities - for example, installing their own operating system, developing their own homebrew games using only their own copyrighted material, repurposing hardware for purposes that the manufacturer never intended, and building compatible add-on products or accessories that compete with the original vendors products.
I believe the intention of Congress was that circumventing the system only far enough to do one of the above, with the intention of doing one of the above, is not "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected" - for that act to be complete, and the circumvention the act references to occur, the final step of accessing the copyrighted work needs to occur. The interpretation of the 9th circuit is, in my opinion, not what congress intended.
Sooner or later the Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, and hopefully will agree with the 6th and Federal Circuits that the interpretation I gave above is correct.
I am not a layer and judges can make arbritrary rueling that get overturned. But, with my fairly limited background I would like to suggest you think of the the law as a fuzzy logic problem not a Boolean one. If (A)(B)(C) are each 40-60% true a judge will often rule basted on the assumed intent of the law and without clear precedence the side with the better argument tends to win. So the question becomes in what ways do each side present the situation and attack each others arguments.
Inference: "Circumvent" means to bypass or disable so any method that disables protection must therefore also "Circumvent" it.
Rebuttal : If "circumvent" implied simply disable then you would not be able to turn a PS3 off or damage it. Melting down old PS3's and selling them for scrap and novelty bookshelves would destroy the DMCA protection, but the modified device is not going to break copyright law.
Counter Inference: That's an argument from absurdity we are not arguing about an inter object but a device capable of running copyrighted software illegally.
Counter Rebuttal: A 300$ general purpose computer may also run come copyrighted software illegally. However both the modified PS3 and the cheap computer run the same range of Sony's protected software without significant further modifications. We can even demonstrate that running PS1 games is simpler on the computer.
As much as I support geohot and dislike DMCA, I'm pretty sure releasing code that circumvents security (and especially the one that causes financial loss) is still illegal.
Well, first, I'm not sure it is legal to jailbreak an iPhone, but to answer your question it's different because the US Copyright office said so.
There's a specific exemption to the anticircumvention provision of the DMCA for "Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset."
Uh, yeah, I quoted that exemption. But it is NOT an absolute right. If you jailbreak an iPhone for the purpose of e.g. using pirated apps (which I imagine many people are) then you are committing a crime even if you haven't pirated anything yet.
Correct, the argument, and also the reason he should be supported, is that it should be. We bought it, we should do with it as we wish (as long as it's not causing financial loss due to piracy etc).
Hey, I'm totally with you. But just because you don't like a law doesn't make it not a law. I think the DMCA is here to stay unless and until Congress fixes it.
Doesn't apply yet because it's never been tested in court. The parallel is pretty strong so there's a good chance that the courts would extend it if they ever got as far as ruling on it.
But the copyright office still can't absolve you of any "trafficking" charges. That is, you can be liable for distributing circumvention tools for an otherwise lawful act. In other words, you can get blamed for distributing iPhone jailbreak tools.
IANAL and I haven't seen it played out in court, but it's one of the more commonly discussed flaws in the DMCA.
The other fun thing is that exemptions can expire unless they elect to renew them each time.
The exemption also specifically states that the exemption only applies to "wireless telephone handset" ... "computer software, in the form of firmware or software", where the purpose of the hack would be to enable the lawfully obtained device to operate on a different network than the one it was sold as restricted to. (Designated class C). Class B states that it is legal to build (and distribute?) programs designed for wireless telephone handsets that are legally obtained in their own right (don't reuse code that say Apple developed), but again it is restricted to "Wireless telephone handsets ... connected to a wireless ... network"
Using the letter of the law, PS3 jailbreaking is not covered under those exemptions. The only exemptions relating to video games are to controlled DRM works where a hacker wishes to research security vulnerabilities, but the "information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement". Sony might have a decent case against GeoHot based on this, since he released the keys that enable people to sign custom code that may act as a frontloader to bypass DRM checks for illegally obtained copyrighted code.
Us hackers might consider the differences between a PS3 and an iPhone negligible enough that hacking either is logically the same task, but the DCMA states that they are two separate beasts and hacking one is entirely different than hacking the other. Unfortunately, people need to follow the letter of the law in order to stay out of these kinds of legal challenges, but these legal challenges are also what help craft the law to be fair. I just wish that GeoHot had a better chance at winning this. He should have been thinking about how to cover his ass a long time ago.
A side question. If we donate, what stops PayPal from randomly "freezing" his account and holding the money hostage, as they have on a number of other occasions for people having a "Donate" link?
Just donated. I wish there was someone better than Paypal for this; I can't see any good reason why it should take several tries for me to guess my own phone number. "Please enter a valid telephone number" is NOT a helpful error message!
Just donated, this is not just a matter related to gethot but also a matter of freedom. Soon or later we should try to win the battle and have an international law stating that once you get some hardware you can put any kind of software inside that hardware, exactly like you can cut everything you like when you purchase scissors.
Look at it this way. Sony has repeatedly fucked me as a consumer. Rootkits, copy protection schemes, fucking memory stick. I put thousands of dollars into Minidisc before I gave up.
Now, geohot. Well, this guy gives me free code and insight into the Kinect sensor. Helps a bunch of people openly enjoy the capabilities of the hardware they own. This isn't even about trust- this is about a big contributor being harassed by bullies. I know what side I'm backing. Cash to EFF, cash to geohot.
I donated, I don't own any Sony hardware anyway, but this is cause I really care about. If Sony were to win it could open a shit storm of similar activity from other manufacturers.
I'm kinda disappointed in Anonymous. I figured there would be more calling of the homes of Sony Vice Presidents at 2am from an Anon raid. I guess there's still time.
(Donated)
While I'm morally completely against Sony's point of view, I'm not sure if there's much that can be done legally. Besides that, I'm a bit unsure about donating to a guy who does not seem to realize what kind of mess he's in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iUvuaChDEg
Just donated. I don't own a PS3 but consider this case important.
I stopped buying any kind of Sony hardware years ago, the first word that comes up in my mind when I hear Sony is "lock-in". Obviously, they don't care that their brand is already tainted in the eyes of many technical people. But losing this kind of lawsuit would be harder to ignore.
Agreed. I'm still so upset about the Minidisc. I picture the engineers making this wonderful product and the legal team just crushing them over and over, making them cripple their own beautiful creation. Very sad. :(
It would also be good to let Sony itself know this. So that when they wonder why their sales went down, they wouldn't pretend to attribute it only to competition and market trends.
I'm sure just getting the word out about what is going on so those who can help financially can hear about it will help. Spreading the word is always just as important.
And it's more than just game systems. Phones and tablets will likely be replacing traditional PCs for most uses in the next several years, and according to Apple and Microsoft those devices are "consoles" too.
Donated. My way of voting against DMCA in general and SCEA in particular. The disenfranchised can only vote with their dollars, and if they can, they should.
I've never donated to anything like this, but Sony's actions are fundamentally corrupt and if unchallenged, will set a terrible precedent for all of us, and severely hurt this individual.
in law i believe people can join themselves to an action if the outcome will directly effect them, perhaps this is what the internet community should do..... completely open source the case
You know, nowadays opening a random one-time email account takes less than 5 minutes. Just go to hotmail and register as oks03wsdjf. You can do that and find out how you can donate.
I think you miss the point. I don't want to communicate with anyone in order to donate anything to them. There are plently other options out there than Paypal so why are they not offered.
Dude, I'm just another HN reader who decided to support this cause. If you made a point in your original message, I most certainly did miss it. You have issues with paypal and email? That's your prerogative. Maybe Geohot didn't expect people to have both these problems.
Obviously you can't read(you keep mentioning email when i've already adressed it entire issue in my second post) so I see no point in continuing this discussion.
downvote away if it makes you feel like a bigger man.
Please leave the childish insults at the door. Misunderstandings happen, but insulting someone for it is wrong.
> so I see no point in continuing this discussion.
If the only thing in your comment is an insult, a statement about ending the discussion, and karma, it's a poor comment and you should just not write it.
> downvote away if it makes you feel like a bigger man.
This comment should be down voted. It's a poor comment by any standard. It offers nothing to the conversation, is rude, and far below HN standards.
You're new here, so I just wanted to take the time to explain why these types of comments are bad for HN and to try and help you improve. I hope it does. =)
You're new here, so I just wanted to take the time to explain why these types of comments are bad for HN and to try and help you improve. I hope it does.
Yes we are nice to each other here, it is kind of the golden rule. There are plenty of sites for technical dogma battles and less than civil discourse. HN is not one of those sites. It is what makes it what it is, and we are kind of fanatics about it staying that way. There are too many of the other sites and HN is kind of different, we like it that way and want it to stay that way.
He may also be able to circumvent PayPal fees, ultimately giving him more money, and he won't have to worry about transferring the remainder to the EFF at the end of it all.
I think that if the EFF won't assume such an important case completely, they could at least help out with some payment processing.